On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:20:44 +0200
> > From: Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]>
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:11:35PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:40:13AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > > Come to think of it, why don't you just putchar(tolower(hf->name[i]))
> > > > in a loop? Saves you the calloc and error handling.
> > > >
> > > > Also, don't forget to fix usage().
> > > >
> > > > -Otto
> > >
> > > Yeah, thanks. Well I got good and critical feedback and Otto's prodding
> > > was
> > > good enough to make me rewrite this puny patch. Gone are errno, calloc()
> > > and
> > > in is the putchar(). I stayed away from adding sthen's idea, perhaps he
> > > can do
> > > the patch for that. Patch follows:
> >
> > You forgot to fix usage(). Also, I think it makes sense to allow -l
> > for sum(1) too, so that both commands that take -a also take -l.
>
> That may be true, but I'm fairly certain that we will not add the -l
> option to either cksum(1) or sum(1). It's not defined by POSIX, nor
> is it commonly available on other Unix-like systems. Our goal is to
> not introduce non-standard options since people will start using them
> in scripts that will become unportable.
in the case of sum(1) and chsum(1) we aready deviate a lot. Posix does
not define any options for cksum(1) and does not define sum(1) at all.
We accept about a dozen options to both.
And I seem to remember the diff was inspired by Solaris.
-Otto
